Page boy Tom Petiffer (right) glances up as he waits with bridesmaids and page boys inside Westminster Abbey before the marriage service of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, 29 April 2011.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wed at Westminster Abbey, after exchanging rings and vows.
The engagement of Prince William to longtime girlfriend Kate Middleton came as no surprise to inhabitants of Anglesey, the island in North Wales where the second in line to the British throne has lived quietly with his bride-to-be for several months.
On Anglesey, William and Kate are just another set of young lovebirds when they pop into a local pub for a pint. The Anglesey Mail hasn’t run any front-page photos of the couple stocking up on staples for the secluded farmhouse in which they cohabit.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
Whether you call it “test-driving marriage,” “living together,” “shacking up” or “living in sin,” cohabitation is on the rise. Sadly, so are the consequences of sharing a home without the commitment of marriage.
So, what do you do if you’re convinced that living together is/was a bad idea, after all?
If you haven’t moved in together yet, don’t. Even if you think you’re the exception; that you can dodge the realities listed above, why risk it? If you “really love each other and plan to get married some day” why live together and lower your odds to 30 percent? Or if you buck that trend and do get married, why increase your likelihood of divorce 80 percent over couples who didn’t live together first?
1Only 30 percent of couples who live together actually get married. John D. Cunningham and John K. Antill, “Cohabitation and Marriage: Retrospective and Predictive Comparisions,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11 (1994), pp. 77-93.
2Ibid.
3From a nationwide survey conducted by the University of Rhode Island, quoted in “Live-in Relationship More Prone to Violence,” by Robert Haddocks, South Coast Today, http://www.s-t.com/projects/DomVio/Livein.html
4Michael D. Newcomb and P.M. Bentler, “Assessment of Personality and Demographic Assets of Cohabitation and Marital Success,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 1980, p.16.
5Cunningham and Antill.
Weekend to Remember-Family Life…Fireproof your marriage
Tim Hawkins- Old Rock Star Songs
Introduction to the Book Of Revelation- Dr Adrian Rogers
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more below I just emailed to him myself at 1:49pm CST on May 6, 2011.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third consecutive year in which the federal government is running a deficit near or greater than $1 trillion. The solution to the government’s fiscal crisis must begin by cutting spending in all areas, particularly in those that can be better run at the state or local level. Last month I introduced legislation to do just that. And though it seems extreme to some—containing over $500 billion in spending cuts enacted over one year—it is a necessary first step toward ending our fiscal crisis…
My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare. But by reducing wasteful spending and shuttering departments that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education, we can cut nearly 40% of our projected deficit and at the same time remove thousands of big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency.
The Department of Health and Human Services is the largest department in the federal government. The department includes programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as other entitlement programs. HHS, and the programs within, remains one of the government’s largest challenges – and among the largest contributors to our fiscal crisis.
In fact, Medicare alone has a $38 trillion unfunded liability, and will continue to grow until it eventually consumes all government outlays.
Unfortunately, there are a number of individuals who have failed to set aside savings, or have failed to plan adequately based on the assumption that they would be eligible for certain entitlement programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. These programs need to be reformed, not necessarily just cut, and therefore, this proposal does not include most of the mandatory spending at the HHS. However, because the department is so large, it would have been negligent to avoid other areas which can provide much needed government savings.
This proposal takes most of the agency’s discretionary programs back to FY2008 levels, and makes further reductions to the Public Health Service programs.
Food and Drug Administration: Reduce 62 Percent
The Food and Drug Administration is another example of an agency that continues to expand every year in power and funding. New FDA powers granted by the recent Food Safety Modernization Act provide examples of the most recent growth of federal government overreach, granting the government further intrusion into the nation’s food supply.
Health Resources and Services Administration: Reduce 34 Percent
One way to combat illegal immigration is to remove the benefits our country provides to non-citizens. The Health Resources and Services Administration provides funding for 1,645 free health clinics for migrant workers all over the United States, contributing to the incentives for illegal immigrants to take advantage of our country and its taxpayers.
These clinics are an unnecessary burden, and do not serve the interests of Americans.
Indian Health Services: Reduce 46 Percent
The federal government’s Indian Health Services agency is notoriously wrought with fraud. A June 2009 Government Accountability Office reports that “millions of dollars in property and equipment continue to be lost or stolen.” It is time to put an end to this blatant government waste and tighten the belt on such programs.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Reduce 28 Percent
The annual budget for the Centers for Disease Control also keeps increasing annually, in spite of “cost-saving efforts” by the department in the way of travel expenses and contract reductions to the tune of $100 million. It seems no matter how much money is appropriated to this or any government agency, they find a “need” for it. It is time for the CDC to work aggressively to find savings in other areas, particularly focusing on domestic priorities rather than spending billions on overseas initiatives.
National Institute of Health: Reduce 37 Percent
President Obama’s FY2011 budget calls for a $1 billion increase in funding to the National Institutes for Health. Reducing federal grants in this area would realize billions in savings. Each of the HHS cuts called for in this proposal will stop the bleeding in these ever-increasing budgets
Prince William and Kate Middleton were married in a beautiful ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London Friday. There were so many picture-perfect moments from the star-studded guest list and the bride’s gorgeous gown to the carriage processional and two balcony kisses, we just had to share them all. Click through to see highlights from the royal wedding including the queen, the Middletons, the gown, the newlyweds, and so much more!
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
William asked Kate to marry him during a private holiday in Kenya last month, after getting her father’s permission.
Charles told reporters that he was “thrilled, obviously,” and said, joking, “They have been practicing long enough it makes me feel very old.”
Of course, who did Charles end up with? Camilla Parker-Bowles, a divorcée who was neither virgin nor hot. Camilla had one thing in common with Kate Middleton, however: longevity.
Kate’s been dating William on and off for eight years, so long the tabloids dubbed her “Waity Katie.”
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did. I wish the term “Waity Katie” had been earned for staying a virgin until marriage like Diana did. I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
Whether you call it “test-driving marriage,” “living together,” “shacking up” or “living in sin,” cohabitation is on the rise. Sadly, so are the consequences of sharing a home without the commitment of marriage.
Try as you may, it’s not easy to defend cohabiting as “just the same as marriage.” The following myths and truths paint a compelling picture.
Myth: “This is just temporary. We’ll be getting married when we feel ready.”
Truth: Only 30 percent of couples who live together actually get married. 1
Myth: “We want to try each other out. We’ll have a better chance of staying married if we live together first.”
Truth: The dissolution rate for couples who lived together before marriage is 80 percent higher than it is for couples who didn’t. 2
Myth: “We’ll get along better once we’re married.”
Truth: Thirty-five out of 100 couples living together experienced a physical assault in a 12-month period; that’s more than double the rate of violence among married couples, which is 15 out of 100.3 The top three problems for couples who live together before marriage are: drunkenness, adultery and drug abuse.4
Myth: “We just want to get a head start on our finances before we get married.”
Truth: Men who live with their girlfriends before marrying them are more likely to be underemployed (before and after the marriage) than men who have not cohabited. Women who live with their boyfriends before marrying them are more likely to need to be employed full time to compensate for their husbands’ underemployment. 5
1Only 30 percent of couples who live together actually get married. John D. Cunningham and John K. Antill, “Cohabitation and Marriage: Retrospective and Predictive Comparisions,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11 (1994), pp. 77-93.
2Ibid.
3From a nationwide survey conducted by the University of Rhode Island, quoted in “Live-in Relationship More Prone to Violence,” by Robert Haddocks, South Coast Today, http://www.s-t.com/projects/DomVio/Livein.html
4Michael D. Newcomb and P.M. Bentler, “Assessment of Personality and Demographic Assets of Cohabitation and Marital Success,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 1980, p.16.
5Cunningham and Antill.
Tim Hawkins Free Credit Report Dot Com Spoof
(5/5) Adrian Rogers – No Other Way to Heaven Except Through Jesus
Saline, if Texas is so great, don’t let the door hit you as you head southwest.
Frankly, I wouldn’t do that to myself or anyone I love. That Texas attitude is what happens when Republicans take over anything. Ray-Gun selfishness all over again but on a state-wide basis and a mouth ten times larger than their brain. BTW, why is Perry asking for fire aid? I thought he didn’t need the rest of us. When those oil wells finally play out, Texas will be a welfare state like Somalia with the same attitude. Let them go and good-bye, Saline.
Responding to Couldn’t be better: You are right about one thing. People are voting with their feet.
In his article “Census: Fast growth in states with no income tax,” Washington Examiner, Dec 21, 2011, Michael Barone noted: For those of us who are demographic buffs, Christmas came four days early when Census Bureau director Robert Groves announced on Tuesday the first results of the 2010 census and the reapportionment of House seats (and therefore electoral votes) among the states. The resident population of the United States, he told us in a webcast, was 308,745,538. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent from the 281,421,906 in the 2000 census — the smallest proportional increase than in any decade other than the Depression 1930s but a pretty robust increase for an advanced nation. It’s hard to get a grasp on such large numbers. So let me share a few observations on what they mean.
First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.
Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).
Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.
There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.
This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.
Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.
COULDN’T BE BETTER wrote: Saline, Given the choice, I’d take CA any day over TX. Except for an island of sanity around Austin, the whole of TX is pretty dismal in terms of its politics. Demographics are going to catch up with them soon. Not enough gringos moving in to out strip the growth in the Hispanic population. Who would you want for governor? Governor “Good Hair” Rick Perry or someone with a brain like Jerry Brown.
My response: Sometimes I wonder what planet liberals are from. The economy of California was the strongest in the nation in the 1970’s when Ronald Reagan was the governor, but after the green movement and other liberal regulators got a hold of it, things went south fast.
I could give you countless stories about people I know that have told me that their customers are in California, but they build their warehouses in surrounding states and ship their products into California. They tell me that you would have to be crazy to try to build a warehouse in California because of all the red tape you have to put up with.
Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?
So here is what happened: Super-elite American military personnel acting bravely and ably in our national defense shot Osama bin Laden in the side of the face and killed him, then dumped him in the sea.
President Obama credited himself a tad too generously in his announcement of this news to the nation. He spoke too freely of his favorite person, “I.”
Expert underlings gave him information and options on elaborate plans. He chose the most surgical, eschewing a bombing of the compound where, he was advised, there was a 50 percent to 80 percent chance of bin Laden’s presence. Then he gave the go-ahead to a daring night raid that Navy SEALS performed admirably.
That the president would have borne full blame had the raid failed — inside a sovereign and semi-hostile nation at that — is an insufficient excuse for taking too much credit. Great leadership is the art of delegation, of praise for others and of personal understatement. It is self-deference, not self-reference. Bragging should be received, not self-inflicted, and biographical, not autobiographical.
Alas, politicians swarmed like termites from the woodwork to get their names into news releases by which they could leverage some supposed association with this shooting death. Even the state Republican Party headquarters in Little Rock felt a need to make official comment.
At the risk of generalization, let us assume that politicians would not be politicians if they understood the beauty of personal discretion.
But no one — absolutely no one — could possibly compete in the grandstanding sweepstakes with the tacky Floridian, meaning the second-favorite son of Hope, Mike Huckabee.
“Welcome to hell,” Huckabee presumed to say to this dead body, revealing himself, again, as more a tabloid headline than a responsible communicator.
Huckabee opened his altogether superfluous public statement by saying it was most unusual to celebrate death. So then he proceeded to celebrate death, apparently licensed by his own pre-emptive acknowledgment of the questionable taste that he was about to display.
The doctrine of hell is a very serious thing to Christians, and I think that bringing it into political discussions does make some people laugh. However, it is not a laughing matter. Huckabee really does believe in hell, but I have my doubts about Brummett.
Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.
Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13).The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.
A second reason hell is necessary is that God’s love requires it. Love does not force itself on an individual, but honors the option of rejecting the love of another. Those who do not wish to love God must be allowed not to do so. Forcing oneself upon another is to dishonor the dignity and right of the individual. Those who do not want to be with God in this lifetime, will not be forced to be with Him for all eternity. It is important to understand that heaven is where God dwells and being the Lord of all creation, He is the heart and focus of heaven. His glory fills the entire realm, and inhabitants of heaven will be in His immediate and intimate presence for eternity. One cannot be in heaven and not know the presence of God. Therefore, those who do not want to be with God in this lifetime will not be forced to be in His presence for all eternity. Instead, God will honor their desire and let them dwell apart from Him in hell. Love honors the right of the other person to reject that love.
Third, God’s sovereignty requires hell. If there is no hell, there would be no final victory over evil. If there were no ultimate separation of good from evil, good would not ultimately triumph and God would not be in ultimate control. God declares He will have victory over evil (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and Revelation 20-22). God will defeat evil by quarantining evil and separating it from good eternally.
The biblical teaching on hell fulfills the justice, holiness, and sovereignty of God and remains consistent with His character of love.
Notes
1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282. 2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18. 3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87. 4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.
U.S. intelligence officials have been forced to reconsider many of their assumptions about Osama bin Laden and his terror network with the discovery that he was living in relative luxury not far from Pakistan’s capital in a house full of children.
By the time bin Laden moved to his sprawling compound in Abbottabad, he was down to only one of this five wives. He had divorced one and three others had moved to Syria.
“He married very young, first a cousin from Syria,” said Steve Coll. author of the book “The Bin Ladens.” “Then a couple of very well-educated women from Saudi Arabia.”
The youngest and his supposed favorite, Amal Ahmed Abdul Fatah stayed with him. Pakistani says her passpoprt was found in the compound after the raid. She was 29 and had been given to bin Laden as a gift by a Yemeni family when she was only a teenager.
Explained Coll, “She was a very young woman by the account of the bodyguard who brought her to meet bin Laden from the tribal family that had presented her to bin Laden, presented her to bin Laden for marriage.”
Amal and bin Laden and their three young children, a daughter and two sons, lived on the second and third floor of the compound’s main house. Bin Laden apparently felt safe enough in the compound, which was surrounded by high barbed-wire topped walls, to keep his family with him.
“I think it was always a mistake to believe he was in a cave,” said Phil Mudd, a former high-ranking CIA analyst and a former FBI counterterrorism official, “and believe me, nobody on the inside ever thought that.”
On Sunday, when the U.S. Navy SEALs moved in, Amal Ahmed was in the bedroom with bin Laden, where she reacted with apparent fury.
“In the room with bin Laden was bin Laden’s wife,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney. “She rushed one of the U.S. assaulters and was shot in the leg, but not killed. A woman on the first floor was killed in the crossfire.”
Carney confirmed that Amal was unarmed.
People who have studied bin Laden say his wives are devoted to him.
Said Mudd, “He is, in the al Qaeda context, an honorable man and he’s viewed in their context not as a terrorist but as a statesman. I would be surprised if this guy would sacrifice a wife for this operation, but I’m sure she was willing to get in front of a bullet for him.”
Amal’s leg injury is not considered serious but another member of his family, his son Khalid, born of a different wife, was killed in the raid.
Bin Laden is survived by at least 18 other children. None of the sons, however, are considered to be in line to succeed their father.
“Unlike a lot of Arab governments that are dynastic,” said former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant, “al Qaeda has not been and his sons have never played a real operational role of any significance. They did not appear to be groomed for leadership roles in al Qaeda.”
Who Is Usama Bin Laden’s Youngest Wife and What Might She Know?
Jonathan Hunt reports on Amal Ahmed Abdul Fatah, the youngest wife of Usama bin Laden and the woman in the room when he was shot and killed. What do we authorities know about the woman who may not have left bin Laden’s compound for 5 years?
The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity ( 1 of 2 )
The noise and crowds were a bit too much for Grace van Cutsem on the balcony, but the photographer said she was adorable and knew how to pose for pictures (pictured right with Eliza Lopes)
An Old Harrovian and seasoned society photographer known for his charm and discretion, as well as his talent for portraits, Mr Burnand represents a more traditional choice than Mr Testino, who is famed for his glossy celebrity and fashion photoshoots.
However, Mr Burnand has photographed his share of A-listers, including Bill Clinton, President Mikhail Gorbachev, Baroness Thatcher, Victoria Beckham and Michael Jackson. He was also responsible for taking the pictures at the 1996 wedding of David and Samantha Cameron.
The Royal Wedding commission was a major coup for the London-based father of four, who has worked at Tatler magazine since 1993.
Yesterday, he described it as ‘the gig of the century’, adding: ‘It was amazing, incredible, and there were a couple of moments where I did pinch myself.’
Of the mood in the Throne Room, he said: ‘From where I was, and from their point of view, it was two families coming together and that was the feeling – the sense of family and love going between everyone.’
He described the happy couple as ‘just so nice as individuals and as a pair’, and revealed that Kate, who has worked as a photographer for her parents’ company Party Pieces, had contributed her own ideas for the pictures.
Mr Burnand got to know Prince William when he photographed him on his polo pony and at Windsor Castle as part of the wedding party for his father’s second marriage in 2005.
He shares with the prince a tragedy in his past: he, too, lost his mother in a car accident. Susan Gordon died in 1964, the year after he was born.
His stepmother Ursy Burnand, whom his father Peter married in 1967, is also a photographer – and was one of his assistants on the Royal Wedding shoot.
Born in Cannes, France, Mr Burnand won his first photography competition at the age of seven, at Cheam School, which was also attended by Prince Philip and Prince Charles.
During his time at Harrow, he became the school’s unofficial photographer, taking portraits of school-leavers.
He did not become a professional photographer until 1991, after a string of jobs including stable hand and insurance broker.
THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND HOW HE PREPARED FOR THE BIG DAY
Hugo Burnand, the official wedding photographer
Mr Burnand spent months preparing for the wedding.
He was accompanied by assistants including his stepmother, photographer Ursy Burnand, 71, who he says is an invaluable member of the team.
As well as cameras, spares and spares of spares, the team were carrying extensive lighting and computing equipment.
They were also using stopwatches to ensure perfect timing.
Mr Burnand has photographed everyone from Spike Milligan to Michael Jackson and former prime minister Lady Thatcher.
He was commissioned to photograph the marriage of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 and the wedding of David and Samantha Cameron in 1996.
Charles also asked him to take the birthday image which marked his 60th year in 2008.
Mr Burnand, 47, who has four children with wife Louisa, has also taken pictures of William and Prince Harry and the Queen.
He has been a photographer for Tatler magazine since 1993.
He has had an interest in cameras since he was a young boy and learned to develop his films and make prints using a makeshift darkroom in his family’s kitchen.
The old Harrovian, based in Notting Hill, west London, said: ‘I never really got nervous. You almost go into another zone when it’s happening.’
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
One of the biggest reasons why marriage is more successful than cohabitation is commitment. With marriage you make a pledge before God, your family and friends. Everyone knows you’re married; it’s a public declaration. In marriage, you’re more likely to make sacrifices for your mate and to strive to make the relationship work. Additionally, divorce is costly, both emotionally and financially. By its very nature, cohabitation encourages a lack of commitment and independence, and is an easy out for the partner that wants to pack a suitcase and leave.
According to Dr. Scott Stanley, a professor of Family and Marital Studies at the University of Denver, another reason to avoid cohabitation is what he calls “relationship inertia.”
“People who are cohabiting might end up marrying somebody they might not otherwise have married,” he says. In essence they’re “sliding, not deciding.”
Dr. Wilcox says that young men and women today think about marriage as the “Cadillac of relationships.”
“They want everything established including the perfect relationship, house and income,” he says. “Thirty years ago, someone cohabitated with a future spouse and were married within six months. Now, men and women are having more relationships and becoming habituated to starting intimate relationships, breaking up and starting over. It’s setting up a pattern of failure and not preparing them for a lifelong relationship.”
Cohabitation and habitual cohabitation not only involves fornication (Hebrews 13:4), which violates Scripture, but it also gives your heart away to someone that God has not joined with you. Indeed, we are admonished, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23).
Alicia and Al now have three young boys and a thriving relationship.
“Marriage would have been a tremendous event in our life had we waited and done things the right way,” said Al. “For me, that’s the biggest loss.”
“Getting married was like coming into this safe place suddenly,” said Alicia. “As a woman, most men look at you as something to be desired. Then I got married, and I had a safe place to be still and process.”
Chick-fil-A
(4/5) Adrian Rogers – No Other Way to Heaven Except Through Jesus
FamilyLife Weekend to Remember – great weekend getaway!!
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 11pm CST on May 5, 2011.
Many in Washington think that a one-year, $500 billion spending cut is too bold. But the attendees at the newly formed Senate Tea Party Caucus say, “Bring on the cuts! And then, bring on more!” My Republican colleagues say they want a balanced-budget amendment. But to have any semblance of credibility we must begin to discuss where we will cut once it passes. My proposal is a place to start.
Created in 1977, the purpose and intent of the Department of Energy was to regulate oil prices. The DoE today reflects an agency that encompasses national security activities such as nuclear weapon production, maintenance, and cleanup which are better suited for the Department of Defense, and other activities that are nothing more than corporate handouts.
In addition, the DoE has provided research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of newer, cleaner forms of energy. All forms of energy development are subsidized by the federal government, from oil to nuclear, wind, solar, and bio-fuels, however these subsidies and research are often centered on forms of energy that can survive without subsidies. This drives the cost of energy up for all American taxpayers. The market has always provided new forms of energy development without governmental interference; it is time for the free market to start taking the reins.
We were convinced that it wasn’t so much the conservative Christian vote that catapulted Mike Huckabee to victory in Iowa as his bass playing. Huckabee played bass guitar with his band, Capitol Offense, at the Iowa Republican Party’s Lincoln Unity Dinner in Des
Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter, welcoming Osama bin-Laden?
Let us resist the evil urge to say it all makes sense — that the Big Huckster would be in that location and that Lucifer would have tabbed him for special responsibilities on account of his gift of gab.
It would be wrong to say something like that.
I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine.
Why study the doctrine of hell? Very few sermons today are preached on this topic, and most Christians try to avoid the subject. However, this is an important doctrine for Christians to understand especially if we are going to share our faith in the postmodern culture that despises this teaching.
Dr. Peter Kreeft and Ron Tacelli write:
Of all the doctrines in Christianity, hell is probably the most difficult to defend, the most burdensome to believe and the first to be abandoned. The critic’s case against it seems very strong, and the believer’s duty to believe it seems unbearable. . . . Heaven is far more important than hell, we know much more about it, and it is meant to occupy our mind much more centrally. But in a battle an army must rush to defend that part of the line which is most attacked or which seems the weakest. Though other doctrines are more important than this one, this one is not unimportant or dispensable.{1}
Several critics of Christianity grew up in the church but eventually abandoned the faith, and many of them cite the teaching on hell as a key factor. Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in his work Why I Am Not a Christian:
I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. . . . I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture: and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.{2}
Charles Darwin grew up and was baptized in the Church of England. Despite his rejection of Christianity, he was buried in Westminster Abbey. Darwin has pointed to the doctrine of hell as one of the significant reasons for his abandonment of the faith. He stated in his autobiography, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”{3}
I am sure that many of us have friends who find the Bible’s teaching on hell to be offensive and use this doctrine to paint the God of the Bible as a cruel and vindictive being. However, most unbelievers’ attacks of this doctrine are built on a false understanding of hell. Christians also have difficulty defending the justice of hell with the love of God because we lack a proper understanding of what the Bible teaches. In this article, I will present the biblical teaching on hell so that we can present a sound response when challenged.
The Nature of Hell
Hell is basically a place of eternal separation from God. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 states that those without God “will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power.” To be separated from God is to be separated from all that is good. A person in hell is separated from all the joy, love, and meaning for which we were created. Instead of knowing God as a loving father, one will know God as judge (Romans 2: 5-8). That is the attribute of God an unbeliever will know for eternity.
Many, including Christians, believe that God tortures people in hell. However, a significant thing to note is that in the New Testament, hell is not described as a place of torture but rather a place of torment (Luke 16:23-28, Revelation 14:11). Torture is inflicted against one’s will, while torment is self-inflicted by one’s own will. Torment comes from the mental and physical anguish of knowing we used our freedom for evil and chose wrongly. The anguish results from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever away from God and all that is meaningful and joyful. Everyone in hell will know that the pain he or she is suffering is self-induced. The flames of hell are generated by the individual who has rejected God. It is not a place where people are forced against their will to undergo agonizing pain. Unbelievers often use this image to portray God as a cruel and vindictive being. However, the torment of hell comes from the individual who chooses not to love God and now must live with the sorrow of being aware of all that was lost.
One of the most severe punishments leveled on a criminal is the sentence of solitary confinement. One of the reasons this is a feared sentence is that the guilty are left to sit alone in their cells and live with the regret and sorrow of their crimes with no one to comfort or minister to them. Pain comes from within as they wrestle alone with their thoughts and emotions. It must be a horrible realization to see lost forever what could have been.
Such is the anguish of hell. The pain comes from the regret of all that was lost. A person experiences separation from God, the ultimate good. This is why hell is such a horrible place and a horrible choice.
Notes
1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282. 2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18. 3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87. 4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.
The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy
From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by such writers as John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible is backed up by many archaeological facts. The Book of Mormon is blindly accepted even though archaeology has disproven many of the facts that are claimed by it. For instance, the compass did not exist in North America when they said they did.
The Book of Mormon also states that a “compass” was known by Nephi around 600 BC. The compass is widely recognized to have been invented in China around 1100 AD, nearly 2000 years after Nephi is said to have known about the technology in the Book of Mormon. Remains of a compass or related technology have never been found in America dating to ancient times.
_____________________________________________
El Amarna Letters Could these tablets contain records of Joshua and the Hebrews conquering the land of Canaan?
Tel el Amarna was in ancient Egypt near the Nile River about halfway between Memphis and Thebes. In 1988 there were about 400 cuneiform tablets discovered at this site which were part of the royal archives of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) who reigned about 1400 BC.
Among them were letters written in Babylonian cuneiform script to these Pharaohs of Egypt by various kings dwelling in the land of Canaan and Syria, they were written during the time of Moses. They provide the first evidence of the Hebrew tribes entering into the land of Canaan in ancient times.
Some of the tablets were anxious letters written from Jerusalem (Urusalim), warning the pharaoh an invasion by the ‘Habiru [Khabiru]’, who were approaching from Trans-Jordan.
It is interesting that Akhenaten’s new capital, Akhetaton, which he built with his queen Nefertiti was at the same place as modern Amarna (Tell el Amarna).
The Amarna Letters discovery is highly important in the study of Biblical Archaeology because they refer to events in the middle east in the 15th and 14th centuries BC. They refer to the Hebrews, they give evidence of the trustworthiness of the book of Judges. They mention a lot about Canaan, the half of Israel to the west of the Jordan. This name “Canaan” has been found in Egyptian inscriptions of the New Kingdom. The king of Babylon used the word Canaan to designate the entire Egyptian province of Canaan when he wrote to Pharaoh: “Canaan is thy land and its kings are thy servants” (El-Amarna 8, 25)
The Tablets are from 3 inches wide and anywhere from 3 to 9 inches in length, and they are inscribed on both sides. The letters were written in Akkadian, which had been the language of international relations for some time. Today the Tell el Amarna Tablets are mainly in the British, Berlin and Cairo museums.
The original name of Jerusalem was Babylonian, Uru-Salim, “the city of Salim,” shortened into Salem in Gen 14:18 and in the inscriptions of the Egyptian kings Ramses II and Ramses III. In the Tell el-Amarna Letters (1400 BC) Jerusalem is still known as Uru-Salim, and its king bears a Hittite name, implying that it was at the time in the possession of the Hittites. His enemies, however, were closing around him, and one of the tablets shows that the city was eventually captured and its king slain. These enemies would seem to have been the Jebusites, since it is after this period that the name “Jebus” makes its appearance for the first time in the Old Testament (Judges 19:10,11).
“But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him. And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it.” Judges 19:10-11
British Museum Excerpt
Tell el-Amarna (ancient Akhetaten, Egypt)
In the fifth year of his reign, Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV, 1352-1336 BC) moved the royal residence to a previously uninhabited site in Middle Egypt. He called the new capital Akhetaten, ‘the horizon of the sun-disc’, and marked its limits on both banks of the River Nile with a series of boundary stelae.
The central part of the city was occupied by the main religious and administrative buildings. An archive of diplomatic correspondence between the kings of the Amarna period and rulers of the Levant was found in the records office. The official buildings were linked to the outlying palaces by the Royal Road, a wide processional way. The main royal residence was the fortified North Riverside Palace.
Timeline of Egypt’s New Kingdom Beginnings
18th Dynasty
Ahmose (Nebpehtyre) 1539 – 1514
Amenhotep I (Djeserkare) 1514 – 1493
Thutmose I (Akheperkare) 1493 – 1481
Thutmose II (Akheperenre) 1491 – 1479
Hatshepsut (Maatkare) 1473 – 1458
Thutmose III (Menkheperre) 1504 – 1450
Amenhotep II (Akheperure) 1427 – 1392
Thutmose IV (Menkheperure) 1419 – 1386
Amenhotep III (Nebmaatre) 1382 – 1344
Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten 1350 – 1334
Smenkhkare (Ankhkheperure) 1336-1334
Tutankhamun (Nebkheperure) 1334 – 1325
Ay (Kheperkheperure) 1325 – 1321
Horemheb (Djeserkheperure) 1323 – 1295
A tsunami floods Iwaki in the northern prefecture of Fukushima, Japan.
I grew up listening to sermons by Adrian Rogers who was the longtime pastor of Bellevue Church in Memphis. In fact, since 1927 only four pastors have led Bellevue and I have had the opportunity to hear all four speak (Robert G. Lee [1927-1960], Ramsey Pollard [1960-1972], Adrian Rogers [1972-2005], Steve Gaines [2005- present]).
Adrian Rogers sermon “No other way to heaven except through Jesus” based on Romans chapter one (part 1).
After Adrian Rogers passed away a spanish past0r put this tribute to Dr. Rogers on youtube:
Hugo Burnand, the official wedding photographer
